What About That 1953 CIA Iranian Coup?

R.J. Rummel’s indispensable Democratic Peace blog gives us the normally overlooked truth about the CIA-assisted 1953 overthrow of Iran’s elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq.

For unspoken reasons, history books generally leave out what led to Mossadeq’s ouster. The story is told almost as if the United States loves dictatorships, when the all-too-obvious fact was that the U.S. was trying to steer Iran clear of the deadliest totalitarian threat the world had ever known.

The Communists and power. After the coup, the CIA explained why Mossadeq had to go:

By the end of 1952, it had become clear that the Mossadeq government in Iran was incapable of reaching an oil settlement with interested Western countries; was reaching a dangerous and advanced stage of illegal, deficit financing; was disregarding the Iranian constitution in prolonging Premier Mohammed Mossadeq’s tenure of office; was motivated mainly by Mossadeq’s desire for personal power; was governed by irresponsible policies based on emotion; had weakened the Shah and the Iranian Army to a dangerous degree; and had cooperated closely with the Tudeh (Communist) Party. In view of these factors, it was estimated that Iran was in real danger of falling behind the Iron Curtain [that is, under Soviet domination]; if that happened it would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War and a major setback for the West in the Middle East. No remedial action other than the covert action plan set forth below could be found to improve the existing state of affairs.

The history books generally give no perspective on Mossadeq’s overthrow. The ones that provide any detail generally start with "The CIA overthrew the Iran’s freely elected government of Mossadeq," provide no context, or provide a context with no relation to reality.

A Cold War on. The context is the Cold War and the fact that the Cold War had another side, which was intent on taking, keeping and expanding dictatorial rule by any means, including murders by the hundreds of thousands and including the “one man, one vote, one time” method. Presidents Truman and Eisenhower were willing to help remove Mossadeq in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala -- and in Eisenhower’s case, to delay elections in Vietnam -- precisely to prevent Communism from taking root.

Of course, the mythology has it that Mossadeq was removed so the West could “steal” Iran’s oil (as if it weren’t paid for), and Arbenz was removed so the United Fruit Company could keep farming its “ill-gotten” Guatemalan lands (as if they weren’t paid for). The mythology completely ignores the Communist totalitarian threat, or the West’s natural follow-up for democracy and freedom.

Can anyone seriously point to a sympathy for dictatorship on the part of Truman or Eisenhower, both of whom had key roles in liberating western Europe and Japan? The two leaders dealt with Josef Stalin during World War II, true, but that clearly was a temporary arrangement.

Temporary inconvenience. During the Cold War, the relatively weak dictators supported by the West always knew America’s support was temporary, and that once the Soviet threat disappeared, the U.S. would demand they protect all human rights, including the right to free, fair and regular elections.

Little also is written about the CIA’s relatively minor contribution to the overthrow of either Mossadeq or Arbenz. The fact is, the Iranians removed Mossadeq and the Guatemalans removed Arbenz. If either leader had been a trusted democrat, he could not have been toppled with so little outside help.

More complete history books would benefit us all.

Frank Warner

Comments

[Christopher Taylor]

I consider the US's support of anyone who claimed to be against communism the biggest error and ethical failure of the late 20th century. It was a blight we're still trying to clean up and repair to this day.

I opposed it at the time, and I oppose it now.

[Frank Warner]

I know the argument, but I think an even better argument can be made that, if we hadn't made some temporary deals with those relatively weak dictators, we'd have an even bigger mess to clean up today.

We allied ourselves with Stalin during World War II because we judged Hitler to be the bigger threat to freedom. We dealt with the lesser thugs in the Cold War because we judged, I think accurately, that Communism was the greater threat.

The problem wasn't U.S. opposition to Communism. The problem was Communism, which promoted an ideology of world subjugation. Had the Soviet Union not continued to push that dark agenda after World War II, the enlightenment of such areas as Asia and the Middle East could have begun so much sooner.

The United States supports a fully free world and, in fact, we see big benefits from a freer world, even if it means we have a relatively smaller part of the global economic pie. Democracies don't go to war with each other, so in a freer world, the U.S. won't be called on so often to intervene in bloody struggles. That saves us lives and money.

Fortunately, the U.S. doesn't have to support many dictatorships today, post Cold War. But in fact it does "support" Pakistan and Saudi Arabia because those dictatorships help us in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the global war on terrorism.

I doubt any sane person would cut our ties to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia right now over their poor human-rights records. We do urge Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to reform their governments in favor of democracy, but considering the chaos around them, we understand how that liberalization might need time.

That's exactly the deal we made with others in the Cold War. You might argue particular cases, as in 1973 Chile, where I thought the coup was a blight on our record, principally because it was unnecessary. Allende's opponents should at least have waited to see whether Allende allowed the next election.

The again, recently declassified information shows Nixon and Kissinger were happy Allende was removed, but the U.S. had no direct role in his overthrow. Why did we step back? The Church hearings.

[Christopher Taylor]

This is where I get into trouble with conservative friends because I believe that in the long term, doing what is right is better than doing what is immediately expedient and seems most pragmatic. Call me an idealist.

[Nicholas]

It's nice to be idealistic but sometimes you have to make a decision between a bad option and a worse option.

I can't think of many worse options than those which would have subjected more people to Communism than already were. The US's unpaletable actions may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives from the deadly carnage of dictatorship, not to mention millions from oppression.

Of course in return there is still oppression. Unfortunately, I don't think people in general in many of these trouble spots will ever be mature enough to realize each time they dig themselves into a hole. But sometimes you can't just sit back and watch it all go to hell.

[Frank Warner]

There's nothing wrong with idealism. Keep your eyes on the prize.

But remember, you can't liberate the whole world at once. We push and pull one or two nations at a time, and even then, there is slippage.

Our dealing with dictators like Pakistan's Musharraf is like us sending out spies. Our people are dealing with bad people, but if you ignore those bad people, you're worse off. Either you've made another active enemy, or you're in the dark.